Comments - A conversation between a Chrisitan and an Atheist - Atheist Nexus2015-03-03T23:27:52Zhttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profiles/comment/feed?attachedTo=2182797%3ABlogPost%3A298466&xn_auth=noOne more thing - "traditional…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2009-04-27:2182797:Comment:2998102009-04-27T14:23:04.985ZAngie Jacksonhttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/AngieJackson
One more thing - "traditional marriage" advocates miss the point that plural marriage was the tradition in the bible, especially old testament. How many freaking wives did David have? or Solomon? LOTS. (And if we're gonna stone people to death for adultery, why not start with Abraham?)
One more thing - "traditional marriage" advocates miss the point that plural marriage was the tradition in the bible, especially old testament. How many freaking wives did David have? or Solomon? LOTS. (And if we're gonna stone people to death for adultery, why not start with Abraham?) She seems open-minded enough…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2009-04-27:2182797:Comment:2998072009-04-27T14:21:27.842ZAngie Jacksonhttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/AngieJackson
She seems open-minded enough to have a chance at rationality :) So I just have a couple points...<br />
* men aren't missing a rib though (common misconception due to religious teaching but if you look at skeletons, it's pretty much awash. After all on "Bones" they never count ribs to determine sex of the victim!)<br />
* "passages have been misinterpreted" - This ended up being a strong support of atheism for me. Scripture (bible, q'oran, dianetics, book of mormon, whatever) is interpretive by its nature.…
She seems open-minded enough to have a chance at rationality :) So I just have a couple points...<br />
* men aren't missing a rib though (common misconception due to religious teaching but if you look at skeletons, it's pretty much awash. After all on "Bones" they never count ribs to determine sex of the victim!)<br />
* "passages have been misinterpreted" - This ended up being a strong support of atheism for me. Scripture (bible, q'oran, dianetics, book of mormon, whatever) is interpretive by its nature. I think this says more about the person doing the reading than it does about the authors or deity. Your friend seems liberal/progressive and loving, so she sees a loving god who didn't hate women or gays.<br />
* Ask her what societal consequences there are if gays marry. (none!)<br />
* Plato was nuts IMO. I took a class on him in college and was appalled. It was very... hmm. Trying to think of a way to say this. He talked about leaving defective (sickly) infants outside the city gates to starve and die, because they would be a drain on society. Very utilitarian and non-feeling approach in "The Republic".<br />
* home birth terrifies me. I grew up watching unassissted home births (no midwife) and i know most homebirth advocates are smarter than that, but it still just scares the crap out of me. glad she and her baby are fine<br />
* on ethics and morality - does she think they are objective or subjective? There are great YouTube videos on the subject and I highly recommend the ones done by Theoretical Bullshit<br />
<br />
I love to see civil intelligent discussions like these happening. I think they help show atheists as non-baby-eating-mass-murderers (hooray) and might even open up the theists eyes to different views of the world/creation/purpose/ethics &amp; morality. With regards to the "adultere…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2009-04-27:2182797:Comment:2997842009-04-27T14:04:27.575ZDionysushttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/Dionysus
With regards to the "adulteress" I am going to quote Bart Ehrman's scholarly work in his book 'Misquoting Jesus'. Apparently, the story was added at a later date and was not part of the original manuscripts that the bible was based on. That's right... it's a non issue since it was made up at a much later date.<br />
<br />
<br />
This is what Bart Ehrman says about it in his book:<br />
"As it turns out, it was not originally in the Gospel of John. In fact, it was not originally part of any of the Gospels. It was…
With regards to the "adulteress" I am going to quote Bart Ehrman's scholarly work in his book 'Misquoting Jesus'. Apparently, the story was added at a later date and was not part of the original manuscripts that the bible was based on. That's right... it's a non issue since it was made up at a much later date.<br />
<br />
<br />
This is what Bart Ehrman says about it in his book:<br />
"As it turns out, it was not originally in the Gospel of John. In fact, it was not originally part of any of the Gospels. It was added by later scribes. In fact, scholars who work on the manuscript tradition have no doubts about this particular case. Later in this point out a few basic facts that have proved convincing to nearly all scholars of every persuasion: the story is not found in our oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John; 18 its writing style is very different from what we find in the rest of John (including the stories immediately before and after); and it includes a large number of words and phrases that are otherwise alien to the Gospel. The conclusion is unavoidable: this passage was not originally part of the Gospel.<br />
<br />
How then did it come to be added? There are numerous theories about that. Most scholars think that it was probably a wellknown story circulating in the oral tradition about Jesus, which at some point was added in the margin of a manuscript. From there some scribe<br />
or other thought that the marginal note was meant to be part of the text and so inserted it immediately after the account that ends in John 7:52. It is noteworthy that other scribes inserted the account in different locations in the New Testament—some of them after John 21:25, for example, and others, interestingly enough, after Luke 21:38. In any event, whoever wrote the account, it was not John."